Are there maybe a few people here who are familiar with CPU and pc hardware?
Following problem
i have an i3 8350k. This is already completely overwhelmed when playing games on the lowest graphics (96% + utilization throughout). Regardless of whether it is League, Fortnite or something else.
I always use the "https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare" page to compare cpu's and gpu's.
However, it tells me that my cpu should only be 4% worse than an i7-10700k or 5% worse than an i9-10900kf, which I want to get now.
is this true? If so, it won't change anything in my gaming experience.
That can never be true in life… Since there are completely different ir i7s and i9s… Amd is more suitable for gaming than intel… In most cases…
i3 eg has different mhz ranges i7 and i9 also have an i9 8-core processor or whatever is with 5000 mhz can never be as good or almost as good as a 4-core processor with 3000 mhz
No, definitely not. I'm using the same page, but the results I get are completely different. Sure you haven't compared your whole system to a random one?
Here is the website I called up: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/...4070vs3935
Userbenchmark is just completely inaccurate.
Hi
i have an i3 8350k.
However, it tells me that my cpu should only be 4% worse than an i7-10700k or 5% worse than an i9-10900kf, which I want to get now
Then buy a new mainboard, because your current mainboard may not be compatible with the new processors. I can tell you that without knowing which mainboard you have at all. For these processors you need an intel Socket 1200 motherboard with an H410 to Z590 chipset. In order to be able to use these processors optimally, an intel Socket 1200 motherboard is required, with a Z 470, Z490 and Z590 chipset.
Your i3 8350K is only supported on Intel Socket 1151 motherboards with H310 to Z390 chipsets. Provided the BIOS / UEFI supports these processors, you can run a maximum of one i7 8700 (K), i7 9700 (K / KF) or i9 9900 (K / KF) on it.
An i7 10700 (K / KF) is not only 4% stronger than your i3 3850K, it is up to two and a half times as powerful as your i3 3850K. That is around 250% more performance. With the i9 10900K / KF it would even be up to over 300%. This is partly because your processor only has 4 cores with 4 threads and the i7 10700 has 8 cores with 16 threads, or the i9 10900 has 10 cores and 20 threads. Even with only one sigle thread, the difference is still 25% to 30%. But that doesn't matter, because these processors won't work on your mainboard anyway.
But even just an i7 9700 (K / KF) with 8 cores and 8 threads would be more than twice (200%) as powerful as your i3 8350K, or is an i9 9700 (K / KF) with 8 cores and 16 Threads, more than two and a half times (250%) as powerful. And these could work on your mainboard if the BIOS / UEFI plays with it. Otherwise, an i7-8700K with 6 cores and 12 threads would also be possible. After all, this offers between 15% and up to 80% more power than your i3 8350K.
So, and now the all-important question: Which motherboard do you have?
In any case, it has to be an H310 to Z390 motherboard. Then I can also tell you which processor you can definitely use.
Yes, I'm aware of the socket. But thank you anyway.
I want to put together a pc tomorrow, can you help me with it? You seem to know your way around a lot better than I do. I know how to build it together. I have already done this successfully twice. But I haven't really succeeded in choosing the right and suitable components so far haha
Seems to be true. It's a shame, then I'll probably have to look for another side. Checking that each time individually from which gene, on which architecture, which clock frequency, how much cache, etc. A certain CPU has and whether it is comparable to another, I just can't always remember despite a very good long-term memory.
Yes i can do it. Send me a friend request. Then you can write to me directly here in the forum.
Synthetic benchmarks are unfortunately not that precise by nature, and in addition, the user benchmark has no interest in creating representative tests. Unfortunately, the operator of Userbenchmark has proven that he is an extreme Intel fanboy. This was clearly shown when the Ryzen 3000 processors appeared, which was the first Ryzen generation that Intel could really stand up to in the gaming area. Instead of being happy that there's a new breeze in the processor market, the user benchmark was not at all pleasing, so the test was changed without further ado so that Intel processors perform better again. For this, the rating was weighted so that practically everything that concerns more than 4 cores is irrelevant, although games have long been able to use 6-8 cores effectively. It got really ridiculous when even Intel's HEDT processors (workstation CPUs like Xeon) suddenly achieved worse results than many an i3, without any declaration of what was actually measured here. The 200 euro i3 is simply better than a 2000 euro Xeon. So says Userbenchmark. The main thing is that the Ryzen 9 5900X with 12 cores, one of the fastest gaming processors on the market, is barely faster than Intel's smallest desktop i3, an office CPU.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/...4087vs4074
In most tests, not even Intel's high-end models can compete with the 5900X, but that doesn't interest Userbenchmark. Intel is just better. Even if it's not better, it's better because it's just Intel. Good logic, isn't it?
Note also that Userbenchmark recommends the i5-9600K as an alternative in the text for the 5900X. That would be cheaper because AMD supposedly pays for marketing. The fact that the 5900X has 6 more cores (i.e. Twice as many) than the 9600K and is faster in other ways is not important. The price difference comes from marketing. You just have to get creative to make AMD look bad at the moment.
Yes, they definitely seem biased. We can only hope that one day they will also include multi-core performance or develop a completely new ranking system.
